Slide scanners

I am tossing the idea around of scanning my own slides instead of farming
the job out. Has anyone have any experience with the Minolta DiMAGE Scan
Elite 5400 and /or the CoolScan V ED? I would appreciate all comments
regarding your experience and opinions.

Advertisements

On 3-Jan-2004, "Grant Dixon" <> wrote:
> I am tossing the idea around of scanning my own slides instead of farming
> the job out. Has anyone have any experience with the Minolta DiMAGE Scan
> Elite 5400 and /or the CoolScan V ED? I would appreciate all comments
> regarding your experience and opinions.

I don't know about the Nikon, but the 5400 is great. We've had several slide
scanners over the years and this is by far the best.

The scan time is longish on our Mac (90 sec or more) but the results are
great. I was tempted by the new Nikon with the 20sec scan time but the 5400
is cheaper and available now.

Advertisements

After wasting 350 dollars and 3 months getting my Nikon scanner
"repaired" -- it now focuses again but takes 3 times as long as before to
scan, and frequently crashes -- and then spending another 400 for a flatbed
scanner to do my contact scans because I don't wish to waste an hour and a
half of my time doing 500 dpi contact scans of 36 exposure rolls of film. I
seriously dis-recommend the Nikon. They didn't even answer my complaint
after the last time I got it back - making them arrogant as well as
incompetent.

--http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are athttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is athttp://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Grant Dixon" <> wrote in message
news:XWOJb.43451$...
> I am tossing the idea around of scanning my own slides instead of farming
> the job out. Has anyone have any experience with the Minolta DiMAGE Scan
> Elite 5400 and /or the CoolScan V ED? I would appreciate all comments
> regarding your experience and opinions.
>
> --
> Grant
>
> Home Pages http://home.cogeco.ca/~grant.dixon/index.htm
>
> Challenge Pages http://home.cogeco.ca/~challenge/
>
> *********************************************************
>
> Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom,
while
> discouragement often nips it in the bud. Any of us will put out more and
> better ideas if our efforts are appreciated.
>
> Alexander Osborn (1888 - 1966)
>
> *********************************************************
>
>
>

>"Tom Thackrey" wrote:
>I don't know about the Nikon, but the 5400 is great. We've had several slide
>scanners over the years and this is by far the best.

Hi,

I second his opinion. By the way I had a Nikon IV and did not like it at all.
Without the ICE option, it takes about 1 minute to scan a slide but the
additional time ICE takes is well worth it. I usually scan at 2700 because I
really don't print much but the 5700 capability is there if I want it.
By the way, the 5400 has both firewire and USB connectivity. I get much better
times with the Firewire.
Rosita

In article <XWOJb.43451$>, says...
> I am tossing the idea around of scanning my own slides instead of farming
> the job out. Has anyone have any experience with the Minolta DiMAGE Scan
> Elite 5400 and /or the CoolScan V ED? I would appreciate all comments
> regarding your experience and opinions.
>
>
Visit my web site for several discussions about the Minotla 5400.
Just follow the tips link on my home page.
It will do anything you probably want to do with 35mm film, but
depending upon your output requirements may be more than you need.

"Tom Thackrey" <> writes:
> On 3-Jan-2004, "Grant Dixon" <> wrote:
>
>> I am tossing the idea around of scanning my own slides instead of farming
>> the job out. Has anyone have any experience with the Minolta DiMAGE Scan
>> Elite 5400 and /or the CoolScan V ED? I would appreciate all comments
>> regarding your experience and opinions.
>
> I don't know about the Nikon, but the 5400 is great. We've had several slide
> scanners over the years and this is by far the best.
>
> The scan time is longish on our Mac (90 sec or more) but the results are
> great. I was tempted by the new Nikon with the 20sec scan time but the 5400
> is cheaper and available now.

What settings for that 90 second scan time? I can scan a slide with
my Nikon LS-2000 in about 60 seconds -- with the "right" settings.
But with the settings I need to get optimal scans of a lot of my
actual slides, it takes more than 15 minutes.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

>In article <XWOJb.43451$>,
> says...
>> I am tossing the idea around of scanning my own slides instead of farming
>> the job out. Has anyone have any experience with the Minolta DiMAGE Scan
>> Elite 5400 and /or the CoolScan V ED? I would appreciate all comments
>> regarding your experience and opinions.

I can give you some comments on my experiences using an Epson Perfection
1250. Pentium 2 266mh, 256megs ram using the Epson Software

Scanning slides with this model is a slow process due to the optional slide
scanner set-up only providing for one slide at a time. Other later more
expensive models have a multiple slide scanning option.

At first I looked at my inventory of slides and thought this was going to
be a never-ending job. It did take quite a bit of time, but it was very
enjoyable and nostalgic viewing what amounts to a little bit of your life
story one at a time on the screen. So, it all depends on your attitude
when scanning. The quality will entirely depend on how good your slides
have been kept over time. You will find that some of them will have
problems that you didn't know existed until you scan them. Others will
surprise you at how well they come out.

The default slide settings on my scanner take about one minute each for
300dpi. (before any other tweaking you might want to do) I don't know if
this will increase in time if you use a multiple slide scanner.

"David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
news:-b.net...
SNIP
> What settings for that 90 second scan time? I can scan a slide with
> my Nikon LS-2000 in about 60 seconds -- with the "right" settings.
> But with the settings I need to get optimal scans of a lot of my
> actual slides, it takes more than 15 minutes.

They are probably, I get slightly better times on a FireWire interface,
straight full 5400ppi scans. If you add the Grain Dissolver, times more
than double because of longer exposure time, and ICE theoretically doubles
the exposure time once more. However, because ICE is very processor
intensive, the processor speed is the deciding factor hoe much loner ICE
really takes. Adding multiple scans of course adds to the total scan time,
in proportin to the number of averaged scans.

One should also not forget that a 5400ppi scan provides 82% more data
(bytes) than a 4000ppi scan, and 300% more data (so 4x as much) than a
2700ppi scan. This requires a fast interface for the best timing results.

"Bart van der Wolf" <> writes:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
> news:-b.net...
> SNIP
>> What settings for that 90 second scan time? I can scan a slide with
>> my Nikon LS-2000 in about 60 seconds -- with the "right" settings.
>> But with the settings I need to get optimal scans of a lot of my
>> actual slides, it takes more than 15 minutes.
>
> They are probably, I get slightly better times on a FireWire interface,
> straight full 5400ppi scans. If you add the Grain Dissolver, times more
> than double because of longer exposure time, and ICE theoretically doubles
> the exposure time once more. However, because ICE is very processor
> intensive, the processor speed is the deciding factor hoe much loner ICE
> really takes. Adding multiple scans of course adds to the total scan time,
> in proportin to the number of averaged scans.

ICE shouldn't double exposure time, it should add 33% (a fourth
channel on top of the existing 3), and that's compatible with the
times I measure on my LS-2000. And I don't find it very processor
intensive.

Is the "Grain Dissolver" GEM, or something else? Again, that's
something I'd really *love*; my old work is all on grainy film, and
I've always hated grain. I've run the GEM trial plugin, and Neat
Image and stuff, and haven't found anything I wanted to buy badly
enough yet.

My LS-2000 is SCSI interface, I think it transfers data as fast as the
scanner can provide it.
> One should also not forget that a 5400ppi scan provides 82% more data
> (bytes) than a 4000ppi scan, and 300% more data (so 4x as much) than a
> 2700ppi scan. This requires a fast interface for the best timing results.

"David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
news:-b.net...
> "Bart van der Wolf" <> writes:
>
> > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
> > news:-b.net...
> > SNIP
> >> What settings for that 90 second scan time? I can scan a slide with
> >> my Nikon LS-2000 in about 60 seconds -- with the "right" settings.
> >> But with the settings I need to get optimal scans of a lot of my
> >> actual slides, it takes more than 15 minutes.
> >
> > They are probably, I get slightly better times on a FireWire
interface,
> > straight full 5400ppi scans. If you add the Grain Dissolver, times
more
> > than double because of longer exposure time, and ICE theoretically
doubles
> > the exposure time once more. However, because ICE is very processor
> > intensive, the processor speed is the deciding factor hoe much loner
ICE
> > really takes. Adding multiple scans of course adds to the total scan
time,
> > in proportin to the number of averaged scans.
>
> ICE shouldn't double exposure time, it should add 33% (a fourth
> channel on top of the existing 3), and that's compatible with the
> times I measure on my LS-2000. And I don't find it very processor
> intensive.

The Minolta implementation is different from the LS2000 one. The LS2000
just adds a fourth (IR) exposure for the single line CCD. The Minolta
scans an RGB image with a tri-linear CCD, and a second scan with an
RGB+IR, and the difference equals the IR exposure alone.

I also have both the LS2000 and the SE5400, and believe me that my
processor usage goes to max when processing the Minolta ICE implementation
as the data comes in line by line. That probably takes some pressure off
of the interface.
> Is the "Grain Dissolver" GEM, or something else? Again, that's
> something I'd really *love*; my old work is all on grainy film, and
> I've always hated grain. I've run the GEM trial plugin, and Neat
> Image and stuff, and haven't found anything I wanted to buy badly
> enough yet.

The Grain Dissolver is a lightsource diffuser, which works fine for
reducing the graininess, even for silver based Black and White film.
> My LS-2000 is SCSI interface, I think it transfers data as fast as the
> scanner can provide it.
>
> > One should also not forget that a 5400ppi scan provides 82% more data
> > (bytes) than a 4000ppi scan, and 300% more data (so 4x as much) than a
> > 2700ppi scan. This requires a fast interface for the best timing
results.
>
> And makes those puny little archive CDs look even *smaller*, yes.

Yes, two or three full res scans (with 64-bit or 48-bit raw data from
VueScan or Minolta scan software) per CDR.

I've owned the Minolta Scan Dual and Scan Dual III, and now own the CoolScan
IV ED. The Minoltas were pretty good but didn't have ICE. The Nikon is
great. I wish I had the funds to try out the 5400, but the IV ED still does
everything I need it to.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!